Erik Faye-Lund <> writes:

>>> Shouldn't the latter also be anchored at the beginning of the string
>>> with a leading "^"?
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    require File::Spec::Functions;
>>>> +    return File::Spec::Functions::file_name_is_absolute($path);
>>> We already "use File::Spec qw(something else)" at the beginning, no?
>>> Why not throw file_name_is_absolute into that qw() instead?
>> Ahh, OK, if you did so, you won't have any place to hook the "only
>> on msys do this" trick into.
>> It somehow feels somewhat confusing that we define a sub with the
>> same name as the system one, while not overriding it entirely but
>> delegate back to the system one.  I am debating myself if it is more
>> obvious if it is done this way:
>>         use File::Spec::Functions qw(file_name_is_absolute);
>>         if ($^O eq 'msys') {
>>                 sub file_name_is_absolute {
>>                         return $_[0] =~ /^\// || $_[0] =~ /^[A-Z]:/i;
>>                 }
>>         }
> In this case, we end up requiring that module even when we end up
> using it, no?

Also somebody earlier mentioned that we would be redefining, which
has a different kind of ugliness, so I'd agree with the code structure
of what you sent out (which has been queued on 'pu').

My earlier question "don't we want to make sure 'C:' is at the
betginning of the string?" still stands, though.  I do not think I
futzed with your regexp in the version I queued on 'pu'.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to